From the BBC:
The report said: "Whilst there has been historical localised, isolated flooding within some of the affected areas, the scale and extent of flooding is unprecedented." It said 126 properties and a 200 holiday park caravans in the area were damaged. But the report said permanent solutions to flooding were costly.
"In current circumstances such projects cannot be funded solely by risk management authorities (which include councils and the Environment Agency)," it said. The report added: "If the situation arises where limited funding becomes available, there is also the opportunity for the local community, as the beneficiaries, to raise the remaining sum, allowing a flood alleviation scheme to go forward. It was considered that risk management authorities may be able to group their funding for surface water alleviation projects.
"This is something that will be discussed, however the sites would have to be considered a high priority for each of the flood risk management authorities for this to be a feasible option."
... Earlier this month, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall met flood victims and local emergency services in Aberystwyth. The prince has made a "generous" donation to an appeal fund for the flood victims.
Oh what a topsy turvy world we live in. Landowners own land, but when it comes to funding improvements to their land, asking them to stump up is seen as something of a last resort.
And I'm not sure how "generous" über-rentier Prince Charles was, elsewhere in the article it says "An appeal fund for the flood victims currently stands at about £80,000."
Monday, 30 July 2012
"Flood victims in Ceredigion could pay for defences"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It depends what you mean by "landowners". Owners of farmland don't really care much if their land gets flooded. Owners of houses and caravan parks do, but they should have checked before they bought the land in the first place if it was liable to flooding. What pisses me off is that developers have made killing building on floodpalins and they are not going to be paying a penny for any flood defenses.
Small communities can be asked to pay for flood schemes where the risk isn't all that severe. They are always shocked because they expect someone else pay.
B, some farmers might not be bothered, I suppose if you use the field for grazing it doesn't matter. If you're crop is flooded just before harvest time it must be awful, but then again I suppose farmers are far too clever to plant crops in flood areas.
Yes, it is annoying that some developers do what they do, but what's built is built. And there are plenty of old towns which get flooded, it's a bit too late to try and sue the people who built Hebden Bidge. You've a straight choice between proper drainage, dredging, barriers etc or let it be flooded.
AKH, exactly.
"B, some farmers might not be bothered, I suppose if you use the field for grazing it doesn't matter."
In fact, it's positively beneficial, as the silt enriches the soil under the grass.
"It's a bit too late to try and sue the people who built Hebden Bidge."
The increase in non-absorbent areas in towns (roads, carparks, roofs) as they grow makes the likelihood of flash floods increase, so it' s not the original builders of Hebden Bridge who are to blame, it's the developers of the latter half of the last century.
B, then it is just a question of how wide we cast the net. The owner of the large car park higher in the valley either has to sort out his own drainage or chip in for drainage further down the valley. Or else this just ends up as an excuse for more NIMBYism.
Post a Comment